JHULLA SAHOO Vs. MINATIBALA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioners have assailed the legality of order dated18.4.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bhubaneswar in Civil Revision Nos.26 of 2001 (12 of 2002) by which order dated 9.7.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in O.S. No.190 of 1984-I rejecting petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of written statement was confirmed.

(2.) PETITIONERS are legal heirs of defendant no.1 whereas opposite party nos.1 to 3 are legal heirs of the plaintiff and opposite party no.4 is the defendant no.2 in the suit. Government of Orissa in the General Administration Department has been impleaded as defendant no.3.

(3.) IN Heeralal -vrs.-Kalyan Mal and others: AIR 1998 SC 618, it has been held that decision of the Bench of three Judges in M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another -vrs.-M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. (supra) is a clear authority for the proposition that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn is such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. While granting amendments to written statement no inconsistent or alternative plea can be allowed which would displace the plaintiff's case and cause him irretrievable prejudice.